Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

First openly gay athlete

thehippo73

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
1,892
Jason Collins has come out as the first male american team sport athlete. Per Dan Patrick show. SI article to follow.
 
What happens when he's doing this next time?

130429102746-jason-collins-celtics-single-image-cut.jpg
 
Perhaps to some it's a big deal, but I know a lot of people who are openly gay, and this, to me, is sensationalism invented. I just want to say, "that's nice," and get back to work.
 
I don't think it is sensationalism. It is big news on a ground breaking event. While I agree that it is not a big deal to me. It is a big deal and historic.
 
I don't think it is sensationalism. It is big news on a ground breaking event. While I agree that it is not a big deal to me. It is a big deal and historic.

Well, the media, as usual, is keeping an appropriate perspective in the relentless "gay is okay" movement. I mean, all it's doing is reporting on it! And the famous people are commenting on it, too, so that they are not mistaken for non-support because, well, that's just not nice.

https://www.google.com/search?q=jas...96,d.aWM&fp=a6e6e242bb78c802&biw=1366&bih=667
 
Glad this finally happened. Maybe this will end that whole "locker room" argument when players realize they have shared showers with Collins for years without him trying to anally rape them.
 
This guy is pretty much a life long pine rider, isn't he?

No pun intended - but it is a pretty good one.
 
The problem with "the media" is that this sort of "announcement" is only being made so big because of the way the media deals with everything.

And Chris Brooooousard is the real faggot. Any douche bag who corrects people and changes the pronounciation of his last name after years of self-promotion is certainly sucking cock when not sucking off LeBron on an ESPN set.
 
Last edited:
This guy is pretty much a life long pine rider, isn't he?

No pun intended - but it is a pretty good one.

Just heard quoted now, describing himself as an NBA role player: I can come into a game, and spell someone for 10 minutes. I'm 7 feet tall...and I have six hard fouls to give...

Jason Collins.
 
Last edited:
The problem with "the media" is that this sort of "announcement" is only being made so big because of the way the media deals with everything.

And Chris Brooooousard is the real faggot. Any douche bag who corrects people and changes the pronounciation of his last name after years of self-promotion is certainly sucking cock when not sucking off LeBron on an ESPN set.

My friend, with all due respect - I have to respectfully take an oppositive perspective.

I just saw what Broussard said, and he included that "sex out of wedlock is also a sin."

Well...that's what he thinks.

He thinks that anything outside of what is ascribed in the Bible is a sin, whether it's homosexuality, or sex out of wedlock - is a sin.

That's what he thinks.

He's as entitled to take that position as long as his employer, ESPN, let's him - well, duh, he's as entitled to take that position, obviously, even after and if his employer ESPN lets him go (at the time of this writing, I haven't heard that Broussard has been let go for what he has said).

Now...I believe ESPN has every right to fire him, for whatever reason, for whatever justifiable or not.

And that's how I view it.

And of course, I close with, that is just my opinion.


My Friend.
 
Last edited:
I wish that ESPN had the sand to allow its people to express themselves and let the chips fall. For a network that considers itself the vanguard of sports coverage that has an alleged "edge" it sure gets nervous when one of its on-air people says something considered controversial. It could own that concept if it wanted to, but it chooses to be a pretender. The Rob Parker firing was an example of ESPN towing the line. Firing a black man for calling out another black man: how PC can you get? And anyone who "comes out" opposing Collins's sexual preference is branded as "bigoted" and "intolerant." Even those who choose not to comment are suspect. The opinion du jour is that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid sexual preference -- as valid as heterosexuality. I don't agree. I also do not judge; I have my own soul to fix.
 
Last edited:
I wish that ESPN had the sand to allow its people to express themselves and let the chips fall. For a network that considers itself the vanguard of sports coverage that has an alleged "edge" it sure gets nervous when one of its on-air people says something considered controversial. It could own that concept if it wanted to, but it chooses to be a pretender. The Rob Parker firing was an example of ESPN towing the line. Firing a black man for calling out another black man: how PC can you get? And anyone who "comes out" opposing Collins's sexual preference is branded as "bigoted" and "intolerant." Even those who choose not to comment are suspect. The opinion du jour is that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid sexual preference -- as valid as heterosexuality. I don't agree. I also do not judge; I have my own soul to fix.

While I don't agree with your view, I certainly think you have every right to have that view. But as far as Brussard goes, he has brought religion into the sports arena. I don't think the two need to be combine. This goes for sexuality as well. I don't need to know someone's religious view or sexual preference.
 
I wish that ESPN had the sand to allow its people to express themselves and let the chips fall. For a network that considers itself the vanguard of sports ...

Remember when that Jewish chick that went to Michigan who's on ESPN made a couple jokes about Jesus at a roast or something for one of those Domer brothers, one of them is on Mike and Mike, and the other played football and is actor who couldn't even get cast as himself in Rudy?

She wasn't bashing Jesus or Christians; it was actually a joke on the Notre Dame Michigan rivalry.

She caught holy hell for it.
 
While I don't agree with your view, I certainly think you have every right to have that view. But as far as Brussard goes, he has brought religion into the sports arena. I don't think the two need to be combine. This goes for sexuality as well. I don't need to know someone's religious view or sexual preference.

I heard some football player being interviewed by Pat O'Brien echoing this sentiment; he said something like "what I do is my business, and I don't wanna know about anybody else's business. Let's talk about rebounding and shooting."
 
While I don't agree with your view, I certainly think you have every right to have that view. But as far as Brussard goes, he has brought religion into the sports arena. I don't think the two need to be combine. This goes for sexuality as well. I don't need to know someone's religious view or sexual preference.

I don't need to know them either, but many people are more than willing to tell me their sexual preferences as if I have to comply with their choice.
 
The opinion du jour is that everyone must accept homosexuality as a valid sexual preference -- as valid as heterosexuality. I don't agree. I also do not judge; I have my own soul to fix.

And, hey byco, mulling it over...I didn't see Broussard as viewing homosexuality being "not as valid" as heterosexuality...

I saw him as viewing homosexual sex as as being as invalid as heterosexual sex out of wedlock.

The dude was consistent with his Biblical beliefs.
 
Broussard's view, then, gives me one immediate and certain follow-up/gotcha question:

"So if the legal recognition of marriage were extended to same sex partners, the objection to sinning would only relate to "copulation out of wedlock" applicable to both same sex couples and "traditional" couples?"



And I am 100% absolute in knowing that being gay or not, is no more a "choice" than is choosing the color of your skin.

I find gay dudes who go on and on or who make stupid "Will & Grace" remarks all the time as annoying as the dudes I know who go on and on about bangin' chicks. Frankly, I don't care ...and it's nobody's business. But when tax breaks, inheritance rights, parental rights and other secular policy is intertwined with gender, I think it's time to wake up and do what's right.

I know of a few same sex partners who have been happier and more succesful in marriage than many divorced couples we seem to know more as time passes.

So in that regard, get shit fixed leally and functionally for society, stop discriminating and actually let God render judgment as so many say He will.



And I love you too, Tinsel. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
 
Last edited:
Broussard's view, then, gives me one immediate and certain follow-up/gotcha question:

"So if the legal recognition of marriage were extended to same sex partners, the objection to sinning would only relate to "copulation out of wedlock" applicable to both same sex couples and "traditional" couples?"

No so hard to answer when you introduce God's opinion on the matter. The whole point is that sex is a gift from God that is reserved for married couples to participate in the wonder of procreation. He invites us to be a part of creating new life, conceived from love. It's the ultimate expression of love--not the sex, but the outcome--our children. That's the idea: and we abuse that gift in many ways, unfortunately, which is, to God, sinful. One of them is in same-sex sex, if you will, because new life can never result from it.
 
Back
Top